Just recently we had 3 members of a Cuban heavy metal band try to defect. We did our best to accommodate them, but we were told by ICE that their visas weren't up yet so they wouldn't take them. Fortunately for them, there are always some local cuban civilian avenues available to them, at least as far as food and shelter.

Bought em a pizza, let them sleep at the station and wished them luck in their endeavor.

Meanwhile, useful idiots take American high school kids to Cuba for Spring Break to see the wonders of socialism.

Many socialists don't consider the Cuban regime to be truly socialist. We call it state capitalist (as we did the USSR), i.e. government ownership that exploits the workers for profit and of course disproportionately bnefits the ruling clique. Another and even worse example is North Korea.

And Obama isn't anything like a socialist either. But you already knew that, right?

As for Cuba, they should allow anybody to leave who wants to. They should also allow freer immigration, workers' control of their worksites, multiparty elections, a free press, etc. etc. In other words, democratic socialism.

Meanwhile, useful idiots take American high school kids to Cuba for Spring Break to see the wonders of socialism.

Many socialists don't consider the Cuban regime to be truly socialist. We call it state capitalist (as we did the USSR), i.e. government ownership that exploits the workers for profit and of course disproportionately bnefits the ruling clique. Another and even worse example is North Korea.

And Obama isn't anything like a socialist either. But you already knew that, right?

As for Cuba, they should allow anybody to leave who wants to. They should also allow freer immigration, workers' control of their worksites, multiparty elections, a free press, etc. etc. In other words, democratic socialism.

And Cuba's ruling clique should be "renditioned" to Gitmo.

So you are a fan of a utopian ideal that exists....nowhere. The practical application of this ideal throughout history has always been suppression of rights, poverty, mass killings and totalitarian power. Perhaps polishing this turd of a political model is a practice we should abandon. Your professors lied to you. It doesn't work.

So you are a fan of a utopian ideal that exists....nowhere. The practical application of this ideal throughout history has always been suppression of rights, poverty, mass killings and totalitarian power. Perhaps polishing this turd of a political model is a practice we should abandon. Your professors lied to you. It doesn't work.

Give us another chance, we'll TOTALLY get it right this time. Swear-zies.

"We were intent on seeking a better artistic life and economic well-being for our families," Cafe Fuerte quoted one of the group, Annie Ruiz Diaz, as saying.

Dear Home Country, thanks for the training and all the great support you gave us. We're ditching you because you're poor and smelly and we want to use the skills you so graciously gave us to make lots of money and hang out with rich, nice smelling people.

Meanwhile, useful idiots take American high school kids to Cuba for Spring Break to see the wonders of socialism.

Many socialists don't consider the Cuban regime to be truly socialist. We call it state capitalist (as we did the USSR), i.e. government ownership that exploits the workers for profit and of course disproportionately bnefits the ruling clique. Another and even worse example is North Korea.

And Obama isn't anything like a socialist either. But you already knew that, right?

As for Cuba, they should allow anybody to leave who wants to. They should also allow freer immigration, workers' control of their worksites, multiparty elections, a free press, etc. etc. In other words, democratic socialism.

And Cuba's ruling clique should be "renditioned" to Gitmo.

So you use "capitalism" to mean "outcomes I don't like"? Because otherwise calling the economies of the USSR and Cuba "capitalism" is absurd.

Meanwhile, useful idiots take American high school kids to Cuba for Spring Break to see the wonders of socialism.

Many socialists don't consider the Cuban regime to be truly socialist. We call it state capitalist (as we did the USSR), i.e. government ownership that exploits the workers for profit and of course disproportionately bnefits the ruling clique. Another and even worse example is North Korea.

And Obama isn't anything like a socialist either. But you already knew that, right?

As for Cuba, they should allow anybody to leave who wants to. They should also allow freer immigration, workers' control of their worksites, multiparty elections, a free press, etc. etc. In other words, democratic socialism.

And Cuba's ruling clique should be "renditioned" to Gitmo.

So you use "capitalism" to mean "outcomes I don't like"? Because otherwise calling the economies of the USSR and Cuba "capitalism" is absurd.

They are dictatorships and police states. The only 'ist' that really fits is fascist. A few ruling elite controls everything. Not like here in the good ole USA where the ruling elite only control ALMOST everything.

Cuba went socialist because they saw what was happening to other south american countries. They got looted and raped by big north american companies.

Meanwhile, useful idiots take American high school kids to Cuba for Spring Break to see the wonders of socialism.

Many socialists don't consider the Cuban regime to be truly socialist. We call it state capitalist (as we did the USSR), i.e. government ownership that exploits the workers for profit and of course disproportionately bnefits the ruling clique. Another and even worse example is North Korea.

And Obama isn't anything like a socialist either. But you already knew that, right?

As for Cuba, they should allow anybody to leave who wants to. They should also allow freer immigration, workers' control of their worksites, multiparty elections, a free press, etc. etc. In other words, democratic socialism.

And Cuba's ruling clique should be "renditioned" to Gitmo.

So you are a fan of a utopian ideal that exists....nowhere. The practical application of this ideal throughout history has always been suppression of rights, poverty, mass killings and totalitarian power. Perhaps polishing this turd of a political model is a practice we should abandon. Your professors lied to you. It doesn't work.

Socialist reforms of industrial societies work EVERYWHERE. They saved free-enterprise economics from totalitarian revolutions. What doesn't exist is a pure libertarian state, because you talk about a silly utopian ideal that ignores human nature...

Meanwhile, useful idiots take American high school kids to Cuba for Spring Break to see the wonders of socialism.

Many socialists don't consider the Cuban regime to be truly socialist. We call it state capitalist (as we did the USSR), i.e. government ownership that exploits the workers for profit and of course disproportionately bnefits the ruling clique. Another and even worse example is North Korea.

And Obama isn't anything like a socialist either. But you already knew that, right?

As for Cuba, they should allow anybody to leave who wants to. They should also allow freer immigration, workers' control of their worksites, multiparty elections, a free press, etc. etc. In other words, democratic socialism.

And Cuba's ruling clique should be "renditioned" to Gitmo.

So you are a fan of a utopian ideal that exists....nowhere. The practical application of this ideal throughout history has always been suppression of rights, poverty, mass killings and totalitarian power. Perhaps polishing this turd of a political model is a practice we should abandon. Your professors lied to you. It doesn't work.

Socialist reforms of industrial societies work EVERYWHERE. They saved free-enterprise economics from totalitarian revolutions. What doesn't exist is a pure libertarian state, because you talk about a silly utopian ideal that ignores human nature...

Citation neededAlso, you realize that libertarians aren't anarchists, right? For many years the libertarian model in practical application worked fine in this country. We may be arguing about different definitions though. Feel free to define libertarians into the new boogeyman if you need.

So you are a fan of a utopian ideal that exists....nowhere. The practical application of this ideal throughout history has always been suppression of rights, poverty, mass killings and totalitarian power. Perhaps polishing this turd of a political model is a practice we should abandon. Your professors lied to you. It doesn't work.

Yeah, that's always been a puzzler... I've heard all the arguments about how socialism needs the whole world socialized to work -- a decades old version of Obamacare's "Pass this bill to see what's in it."

Another argument of apologists is "You can't compare the U.S. with poor countries. They are different to start with. M'Kay... fair enough. But we DO have two examples of what happens when one takes a country and splits it into a socialist and a capitalist half: Germany and Korea. Both capitalist halves became world economic powers, and both socialist halves became third-world shiatholes. Oh, yeah, sign me up. Morons.

Cuba went socialist because they saw what was happening to other south american countries. They got looted and raped by big north american companies.

And apparently, lots of Cubans have decided that looting and rape looks pretty good, compared with life in "socialist paradise" Cuba. It's like with the old East Germany... People are willing to die to get out of that living, low-key, depressing hell. But, you know, this country still has parts of its freedom left -- if you think it's better, nobody will shoot you for leaving; you're free to go to Cuba. Maybe THAT would give you a better idea. Of course, then YOU might be looking for ways to escape.

Socialist reforms of industrial societies work EVERYWHERE. They saved free-enterprise economics from totalitarian revolutions. What doesn't exist is a pure libertarian state, because you talk about a silly utopian ideal that ignores human nature...

Meanwhile, useful idiots take American high school kids to Cuba for Spring Break to see the wonders of socialism.

Many socialists don't consider the Cuban regime to be truly socialist. We call it state capitalist (as we did the USSR), i.e. government ownership that exploits the workers for profit and of course disproportionately bnefits the ruling clique. Another and even worse example is North Korea.

And Obama isn't anything like a socialist either. But you already knew that, right?

As for Cuba, they should allow anybody to leave who wants to. They should also allow freer immigration, workers' control of their worksites, multiparty elections, a free press, etc. etc. In other words, democratic socialism.

hitlersbrain:"We were intent on seeking a better artistic life and economic well-being for our families," Cafe Fuerte quoted one of the group, Annie Ruiz Diaz, as saying.

Dear Home Country, thanks for the training and all the great support you gave us. We're ditching you because you're poor and smelly and we want to use the skills you so graciously gave us to make lots of money and hang out with rich, nice smelling people.

Then too, even before the USSR was established there were very radical Marxists who denied that Leninism was truly Marxist or even broadly socialist: see Rosa Luxemburg's essay known as "Leninism or Marxism?" for example. Not even Lenin declared that since Luxemburg disagreed with him she wasn't really Marxist, only that she was mistaken about certain practical stategies; do you agree with Luxemburg and Lenin that Luxemburg was a Marxist socialist, or do you declare that Lenin was and Luxemburg wasn't? (And if so, who decided you were an Expert though you clearly don't understand a damn thing about whart you think you're talking about?)

This is not the time or the place for "Socialism 101." A good starting point would be the Wikipedia article on "The First International," showing that in the first place Marx joined the socialist movement, he did not create it. There were indeed many groups and "leaders" that called themselves socialist, including many who did not believe in government such as the (Russian!) Mikhail Bakunin. That is, even at what is usually acknowledged to be the beginning of the organized socialist movement there were several (often violently conflicting) ideas about what "socialism" meant, and even today within the Marxist "broad current" there are STILL disagreements that the USSR was Marxist, let alone socialist.

And you have the idiotic effrontery to tell me you know more about what socialism means than Marx, Luxemburg, Bakunin, Lenin or even me, who though we'd disagree strongly with each other would agree that you don't know what you're talking about?

In this case I really don't have either the Authority or the Power to decide that Cuba ain't socialist (though, among others, I wish I did): a fairer, less polemical view is that nobody can prevent the Politburo of the Communist Party of Cuba from disagreeing with me. (Yes, that's a very subtle joke: if you checked out a few of the linked references in this post, or even read it carefully, you might get it.)

So: when will people who don't know the first thing about what they're spouting off about stop telling people who have spent (in my case literally) decades studying the subject that we "refuse to admit [the Truth]?" How the fark would YOU know? (Or would have known, before this very educational essay anyway.) I'll bet you still don't understand my correction of your question (quoted above).

But hey, I really shouldn't be so hard on you: I said stupid shiat when I was 12 myself.

Because neither you nor Lenin, Stalin or even Marx get to define what "socialism" means.

To begin with, socialism and communism predated so-called Marxism-Leninism, or even Marxism itself, by centuries actually: Marxism is at best a type of socialism the way "Fundamentalism" is a type of Christianity, so saying the USSR was the epitome of socialism is like saying the Eastern Orthodox aren't really Christians. They would dispute that, as would e.g., the Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Anglicans or even Methodists and Quakers. Yet certain loudmouths who call themselves "Christian" can convince a large part of hoi polloi that that their theories and practices are normative, i.e. that everybody who calls themselves Christian thinks and acts like they do. (Are you with me so far?)

Then too, even before the USSR was established there were very radical Marxists who denied that Leninism was truly Marxist or even broadly socialist: see Rosa Luxemburg's essay known as "Leninism or Marxism?" for example. Not even Lenin declared that since Luxemburg disagreed with him she wasn't really Marxist, only that she was mistaken about certain practical stategies; do you agree with Luxemburg and Lenin that Luxemburg was a Marxist socialist, or do you declare that Lenin was and Luxemburg wasn't? (And if so, who decided you were an Expert though you clearly don't understand a damn thing about whart you think you're talking about?)

This is not the time or the place for "Socialism 101." A good starting point would be the Wikipedia article on "The First International," showing that in the first place Marx joined the socialist movement, he did not create it. There were indeed many groups and "leaders" that called themselves socialist, including many who did not believe in government such as the (Russian!) Mikhail Bakunin. That is, even at what is usually acknowledged to be the beginning o ...

Throughout that whole vitriolic, self congratulatory epic poem to your own genius, you never once answered the question. Where is the socialist govt (by ANY definition) that works? Not just the theoretical masturbatory fantasy of an ivory tower isolationist, but the greasy, scraped knuckled workers paradise we have all been expecting? You don't have one, do you?Have you ever even worn a pair of steel toed boots to work because it was a job requirement? You sound like the soft white underbelly of neo-fascists who want to kill off the weird and individualistic people because they scare you by not conforming to your fearful world view. In other words, don't feel bad. I said a lot of stupid shiat my professors taught me when I lived at my parents home too. Eventually, you'll grow out of it.

Because neither you nor Lenin, Stalin or even Marx get to define what "socialism" means....

studs up:Throughout that whole vitriolic, self congratulatory epic poem to your own genius, you never once answered the question. Where is the socialist govt (by ANY definition) that works? Not just the theoretical masturbatory fantasy of an ivory tower isolationist, but the greasy, scraped knuckled workers paradise we have all been expecting? You don't have one, do you?

I answered that question, twice: I don't consider the loathesome Leninist states you're talking about to be socialist. Neither would Bakunin or any other anarchist socialist; I'm not sure even Marx or Luxemburg would. Tony Cliff certainly didn't.

The fact is there hasn't yet been a large industrial society I'd call socialist, because in my arrogant fashion I deny that label to "Communist" dictatorships. In fact it would be hard to reconcile my idea of socialism with a nation-state or worse an empire like the USSR. Others would disagree, and as previously noted nobody made me the Pope of Socialism; yet, as I tried to teach y'all, there are many other people who call themselves socialist and who most socialists would agree are socialist who share my loathing for "Marxist-Leninist" tyrannies. Such as, e.g., the Socialist Party USA.

In other words, to answer your question so clearly you should get it, I cannot point to "a socialist govt" that works because as far as I know there haven't been any that have lasted long enough to percolate down to your present capacity for understanding, if indeed socialism has anything to do with government in the first place. The closest to a socialist society I know of was the Ukraine during the time of the The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, which after it helped mightily to destroy the counter-revolutionary White Army was then betrayed and crushed by the Leninists under the generalship of the bloodthirsty Trotsky. (In my opinion the Nazis were basically imitating the Leninists in the Russian Civil War and the "Marxist-Leninists" in the Ukraine; I'd also say Lenin's regime and most certainly Stalin's and Mao's were worse than Hitler's in that they oppressed, robbed and killed more people over a longer time.)

As far as I'm concerned it'll be a long time before America is ready for anything I'd call socialism, perhaps another generation or three, and then only if we've succeeded in educating people such as yourself. At this point the movement (broadly conceived) is too much like the early Church under the early Roman Empire: small, spread out, disorganized, rife with internal disagreement, and unable to do much teaching and recruiting because it's hard to get a word in edgewise given the "bread & circuses" of TV, iWhatever and pop music. I myself have had to back-burner my own "sectarianism" and support so-called democratic socialism despite its pushing government: it might well be that we'll need a long transitional phase with government as a necessary evil. But I'd rather die than live under a "Marxist-Leninist" dictatorship or even support anybody who wants one.

Have you ever even worn a pair of steel toed boots to work because it was a job requirement?

Yes. As did my father and his father and my mother's father, though they worked "real jobs" in old-fashioned factories. (By the time I was old enough those were closing; I won't buy Dupont goods though my grandfather worked there for 30 years because when they later deserted Wooster, Ohio it pretty much killed the town.) I've moved furniture, painted houses, cleaned basements and toilets; in 1983 I even tried to blow insulation till I had to quit after one day because I couldn't afford protective gear and my eyes, lungs and skin couldn't tolerate the tiny pieces of fiberglass till payday, for $5/hour yet. (To be fair it was one guy, his truck and me, but he could have fronted me a damn respirator and took it out of my first pay.) Oh and I bussed tables and delivered papers when I was 12-13, and then as a teenaged escapee from juvie jail I had to trade my body for room & board. Do I qualify as proletarian in your book, most esteemed sir?

Now listen: before either of you try to argue this stuff with me or anyone whose opinions and hobbies even vaguely resemble mine you might want to go back over my last post carefully, click on all the links, and give your full attention to those definitions and articles. Take your time; move your lips if you have to. (There's no disgrace in that: my ears have rang so badly for 20 years that in order to concentrate on reading anything more complicated than the Sunday funnies I have to sound out each word in my head.) You might even do more intensive reading on the subject, e.g., look up the Wikipedia articles' external references, Google around a bit, even check out libcom.org where people I mostly agree with and who often know what I'm talking about much better than I do post & hang out.

And then, when you have a better idea what you're talking about, find somebody more patient than me to indulge you with Socratic dialogue. (Admittedly that should be the easiest part of all that.)

Because neither you nor Lenin, Stalin or even Marx get to define what "socialism" means....

studs up: Throughout that whole vitriolic, self congratulatory epic poem to your own genius, you never once answered the question. Where is the socialist govt (by ANY definition) that works? Not just the theoretical masturbatory fantasy of an ivory tower isolationist, but the greasy, scraped knuckled workers paradise we have all been expecting? You don't have one, do you?

I answered that question, twice: I don't consider the loathesome Leninist states you're talking about to be socialist. Neither would Bakunin or any other anarchist socialist; I'm not sure even Marx or Luxemburg would. Tony Cliff certainly didn't.

The fact is there hasn't yet been a large industrial society I'd call socialist, because in my arrogant fashion I deny that label to "Communist" dictatorships. In fact it would be hard to reconcile my idea of socialism with a nation-state or worse an empire like the USSR. Others would disagree, and as previously noted nobody made me the Pope of Socialism; yet, as I tried to teach y'all, there are many other people who call themselves socialist and who most socialists would agree are socialist who share my loathing for "Marxist-Leninist" tyrannies. Such as, e.g., the Socialist Party USA.

In other words, to answer your question so clearly you should get it, I cannot point to "a socialist govt" that works because as far as I know there haven't been any that have lasted long enough to percolate down to your present capacity for understanding, if indeed socialism has anything to do with government in the first place. The closest to a socialist society I know of was the Ukraine during the time of the The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, which after it helped mightily to destroy the counter-revolutionary White Army wa ...

No you never answered the original question until forced into the corner. By your own admission, there has never been a socialist state (we are generations away!) so therefore, there could be no practicable model to denounce. A handy bit of deflection that, unfortunately for you, ends in a failed argument. Even your closest approximation, the Black Army, was actually anarcho-communist, not socialist by any stretch and had at most, what, 100K people for a couple of years? It was all military. Nothing industrial or socially structured at all. Simply a poor example, like the rest of your argument

By the way, no, your history does not scream working class at all. Only some elitist failed academician would list that resume tripe publicly thinking it would be accepted as working class. People you are related too might have been working class, you worked a summer cleaning tables and delivering papers, and you consider yourself part of struggles? The tragic instance of your forced prostitution may be a horrid experience I would not wish on anyone, but, that has nothing to do with being working class. It does explain a lot though.

Most importantly, you, like most of your brethren, are under the assumption that if we (the actual working class) don't agree with your positions, we are just ignorant or have not read enough to understand. You also must think we are intellectual inferiors to both have seen the same data and derive different conclusions. It is the arrogance of the left that perpetuates these myths and it is probably not your fault. Your stupid shiat probably never gets challenged so you wander about in a protected intellectual environment of those that reinforce these "great socialist ideals" never hearing/understanding that there might be a counter argument. It is blatantly obvious to me because of your absolute confidence about how you have defined yourself as working class and the way you describe your bona fides.

Your argument does not stand. We are your intellectual equals. Your arrogance is not proof. I pity you./Now get your shine box